The point is, there is such variety, does this discussion have merit? Basically no one has a clear idea of what Steinway really is because there is such a variety. So to say we should or shouldn't do this or that, is absurd. I agree, to build the best piano we know how would be the only logical answer. Keith On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 4:13 PM, David Love <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>wrote: > Forgive me but I’m not clear as to the point. I would say that > rebuilders vary quite a lot and the variety of outcomes is due to much more > than the tweaking of action ratios or hammer selection. I have read Franz > Mohr’s book (most of it anyway) but I think it should be viewed in light of > his sentiment. He is and has reasons to be very beholden to Steinway. > Given their history together I don’t blame him. And yes, there are > certainly differences in outcomes with pianos of the same make and model > even when they are using the same design. The question is why and to what > degree the standard deviation needs to be as wide as it is. There are two > aspects, design and execution. Part of my point was that even putting > design aside, there is far too much variability coming out of Steinway in > terms of execution, at least from what I’ve seen from the rebuilding > department. A more careful rebuilding job with greater attention to detail > can narrow the range of variability to the degree that the designs allow. I > don’t see that coming from the factory often enough. The design issue > itself is another question but my point there was that many rebuilders who > are tweaking the scaling (which btw almost every independent bass string > maker does including GC, Arledge, JD Grandt, Sanderson, Issac, to name a > few), or embracing alternate ways of forming crown are not necessarily > rejecting the Steinway tonal concept of low tension scale, heavy plate and > rim, lightweight soundboard assembly, lightweight and soft hammer. Rather, > many are just looking for a more reliable and consistent way to achieve > those ends given the things we have to work with. > > > > I don’t know if that addresses your point or not but that was mine. > > > > David Love > > www.davidlovepianos.com > > > > *From:* caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] *On Behalf Of *Keith > Roberts > *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2009 8:11 AM > *To:* caut at ptg.org > *Subject:* Re: [CAUT] Steinway or Forgery? > > > > If you have read Franz Mohrs book, every Steinway is different. According > to him they are hand built. The difference in the piano Rubenstein choose > was way different than Horowitz. > > Since every piano is hand crafted, then i would think the rebuilt one by a > real craftsman instead of factory lackys on an assembly line would be in > keeping with the Steinway signature. It's a good basic design to start with. > Not many rebuilders vary much. Most of the variety comes in the tweaking of > the action ratio to the one that most people like. > > Hammers are like tires. If you don't like the ones you got, change them. > You are talking $50K+ instruments. Find the right hammer. > > Keith Roberts > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 6:49 AM, David Love <davidlovepianos at comcast.net> > wrote: > > You might be surprised to hear that many technicians who are eschewing the > recent Steinway model are, in fact, interested in capturing (or recapturing) > the tonal signature that characterized the early Steinways although with > techniques that produce a higher success rate, greater consistency across > the scale and a more stable product. Comparing the early Steinways with the > ones currently being produced is difficult because there have been many > changes both in production techniques and quality control: Hammers, action > parts, leverage, soundboard design (in particular diaphragmizing) all > contribute to the question of which Steinway are we referring to. Would you > have made the same argument in the 1970’s when Teflon bushings were the > action centers of choice and leverage that produced key weighting with seven > leads in the middle of the piano was the norm at the factory? > > > > I have seen several Steinway factory rebuild jobs recently that were > extremely disappointing with problems that ranged from weak and buzzy killer > octaves, poor bridge pin spacing and alignment, inadequate bearing combined > with inadequate crown (not good on a new belly), excessively heavy > touchweight, missed strike points, pinblocks that were too tight and popping > all over the place as well as pinblocks that were too loose, the list goes > on. I have one customer who sent their piano to me to rebuild after hearing > the one belonging to a friend that came from the factory. > > > > You might also be surprised to find that the choice to reject the current > Steinway production model is not ego driven but based on the pressure that > independent rebuilders face to produce a quality product 100% of the time, > not 50%, 25% or even less. My one goal that trumps all other goals is to > stay in business. For me, then, every job is considered a performance that > must achieve the highest level possible. I can’t cruise on 150 years of > marketing success. The question of what makes a Steinway a Steinway has > been hashed over so much that it’s difficult to comment on it adequately > within the scope of this particular response. But suffice it to say that, > in my view, there is an enduring mythology about the contributing factors > that are mistakenly substituted for the end result. The proof of the > pudding is in the tasting. > > > > David Love > > www.davidlovepianos.com > > > > *From:* caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] *On Behalf Of *Sloane, > Benjamin (sloaneba) > *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2009 4:22 AM > *To:* caut at ptg.org > *Subject:* [CAUT] Steinway or Forgery? > > > > In this I would like to address a few of topics recently discussed on > the CAUT list, however related to the Re. These are: > > 1. finding the right hammers for the piano, > > 2. belly work, > > 3. The strange fact that some are more concerned whether or not the > Steinway factory is producing Steinways than rebuilders themselves > > 4. Should I replace the block > > Less recently, the Cincinnati Chapter of the PTG had a quarrel about > rebuilding, featuring primarily a feud between two characters. I am going to > refrain from employing their appellations, but many will know who I am > talking about. I was not in Cincinnati, but Oberlin at the time of the > conflict. It has led to lost friendships, bruised egos, alienation evident > to someone not even here at the time, and many unanswered questions. In the > end, a Steinway dealer got ousted from the guild, while managing to hold on > to the dealership for something like another 15 years or so after the fact. > Or was it 9? 20? My observations result from never having had a conversation > with either man, and hopefully, will not seem an imposture, but an objective > response of someone emotionally removed from the conflict. > > A number of rebuilders in Cincinnati learned bellywork from Baldwin. The > then local Steinway dealer, a rebuilder, tuner, and editor of the PTG > Journal as well decided one of the Baldwin disciples didn’t know what he was > doing, and said so, dare I suggest, inferred that he Baldwinized pianos. Now > we should all understand that permeating the piano industry is the > distinction between what the factory does, and what piano technicians do. We > have to deal with what the factory made in the first place, whether or not > the factory achieved stated goals, and beyond that, in every area of piano > maintenance. The factory itself deviates from specs. That is another > subject. > > Though experiencing a lot as a shop monkey at Oberlin, I decided to > leave for Cincinnati in order to familiarize myself with fieldwork, focusing > on tuning. At the time, shopwork bored me. Some people actually got the > impression in Cincinnati all I do is tune in the process. Whatever. I had > the opportunity to evaluate the work of both these Technicians right down to > the bellywork; I found both to be doing some very impressive work, > notwithstanding the eggs these men laid in the process. My piano degree > affords me the opportunity at a sonic evaluation, most of all. Nevertheless, > I am not convinced all the chickens came home to roost in the final > analysis. > > The observations of Sturm, Mannino, and others about the peculiarities > of different pianos, actions, and hammers bring us vis-à-vis the decision > making process of belly and action work, and begs the question, > > Is it still a Steinway? Is it still a Baldwin? Is it still a Mason & > Hamlin? Is it still a Kawai? > > I’ve worked at both the oldest Steinway school in the world, and now, > the newest one. Steinway takes a lot of flack in spite of their success. The > last national convention I went to as I recall, one European teacher called > Steinway the piano mafia and a monopoly. Again, people seem more disposed to > question whether or not the Steinway factory is producing Steinways more > than rebuilders themselves. This, is absolutely, ridiculous. > > Partly out of deference to Steinway, and also, due to time constraints, > at Oberlin, we decided to plug, or what others call shim, many soundboards, > and not only leave the original block in, but use different size pins to > accommodate wear, not re-drill. What, cracked? Some criticized this > approach, even from within, but we never found it necessary to oust anyone > from the Cleveland chapter as a result. For quite a few years, we managed to > get 15 or 20 action jobs a year done with 3 people and a sizable inventory > subjected to the heaviest use imaginable because of the time and budget we > created by this approach, not to mention the re-stringing, plugging, bridge > pin glue-sizing, and everything else that went with this I was too young to > realize happened also. And we coughed up the money for Steinway hammers! I > know this, from experience at other institutions, including others besides > Oberlin and Cincinnati, was a lot. It was a balancing act to this day I > think under the circumstances was the ideal response in that situation, a > type of situational ethics technicians both in business for themselves and > at institutions scoff at. You rebuild 15-20 actions a year, re-string a few, > tune for the greatest musicians, and still, you don’t understand what a > piano is. > > Steinway does not even have a monopoly over his own name. Steinway > didn’t need to start a restoration program. I am not sure any other belly > worker could say they restore Steinways but Steinway. The name Steinway is > used so loosely now. Why do some Boston pianos come with a stretcher bar > that is mounted with screws? How on earth do we even begin to suggest the > Steinway factory stopped producing Steinways many years ago? I find this > outrageous when considering what people are doing with the Steinway name > now, and how little concern Steinway was allowed to express about this. > > I must unequivocally reject the idea that the Steinway factory is not > producing Steinways, from the hammer to the belly to the action to the > action ratio to the etc. The notion that we suggest this in light of what > rebuilders are doing to Steinways today, is preposterous. > > For the, “Is it a Steinway?” query, the ball must be put squarely in the > court, of the rebuilders, not the Steinway factory. Kick me out if you want, > but I want to reassure all of you as someone, again, with experience at the > first and the last Steinway school in the world. The Steinway factory, > believe it or not, is still making Steinways, and they are as Steinway as > Steinway can get. > > News flash! The Steinway factory did not stop producing Steinways years > ago. The Steinway factory still makes Steinways, and on the other hand, it > is no lucky coincidence when a rebuilder restores a Steinway, or does > not. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090417/7a1fdaa8/attachment-0001.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC